[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 149 (Wednesday, October 3, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H11177-H11182]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2740, MEJA EXPANSION AND
ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2007
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 702 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 702
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2740) to require accountability for
contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts,
and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or
10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill
and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the
Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All
points of order against the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute are waived except those arising under clause
10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or
10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the
bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the
bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous
[[Page H11178]]
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 2740
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Salazar). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Sutton) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SUTTON. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30
minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time
yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Ms. SUTTON. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. SUTTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. SUTTON. H. Res. 702 provides for consideration of H.R. 2740, the
Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act Expansion and Enforcement
Act of 2007, under a structured rule.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary. The rule makes in order and provides appropriate waivers for
three amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying
bill which helps to address one of the most disturbing and pressing
issues to come before the Congress this year, the lack of oversight and
accountability of contractors abroad and here at home. And it is vital
that we are passing the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act today to
address at least one of these critical issues.
Currently, there are estimated to be at least 180,000 contractors
working in Iraq under contracts awarded by the Department of Defense,
the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development,
and other Federal agencies. Yet under current law, only contractors
working for the Department of Defense can be held responsible for
crimes they commit while working in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere
throughout the world.
At present, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, MEJA,
leaves felonies committed by contractors working for other Federal
Departments unpunished. This is unfair and unacceptable, and this
Congress must act to ensure that justice is not a selective American
principle.
Our current law has given private mercenary armies like Blackwater
USA free rein to do as they please without fearing the repercussions.
And as we have seen, that unbridled freedom from any accountability has
resulted in sometimes egregious criminal behavior. But under the MEJA
Expansion and Enforcement Act, Federal contractors working for every
Department and agency will be held responsible for criminal acts. It
will also direct the FBI to establish units to investigate crimes
committed by contract personnel operating abroad.
Mr. Speaker, it simply makes no sense to hold contractors to a
different standard than American citizens living at home or even the
brave soldiers who risk their lives every day in Iraq. It is a travesty
of justice that we allow private armies to evade punishment for serious
crimes, especially considering we have prosecuted our soldiers for the
very similar actions.
{time} 1045
In a recent incident that has received significant scrutiny,
Blackwater guards were involved in a September 16 shootout in Baghdad
that left 11 Iraqis dead and a number wounded. This event spurred such
a tremendous public outcry that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had
to apologize to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.
And we have learned from reports compiled by Blackwater themselves
that since 2005, its employees have been involved in at least 195
incidents in Iraq that involved the firing of shots by Blackwater
guards. Blackwater's contract with the State Department stipulates that
Blackwater may only engage in defensive use of force. However, in the
vast majority, over 80 percent, of these shooting incidents,
Blackwater's own reports revealed that its guards fired the first
shots. In one incident that has recently come to our attention,
Blackwater guards shot a civilian bystander in the head. In another,
State Department officials report that Blackwater sought to cover up a
shooting that killed a seemingly innocent bystander.
Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began, and despite numerous
instances where the military has found probable cause that a crime has
been committed and has referred the case to the Justice Department,
there has been only one successful prosecution of a civilian contractor
for wrongdoing.
Without fear of reprisal, these reckless contractors have operated
with no regard for the private property of innocent Iraqi citizens. In
a November 2005 incident, a Blackwater motorcade collided with 18
different vehicles. Written statements from team members were
determined to be invalid, and a Blackwater contractor on the mission
stated his tactical commander ``openly admitted giving clear direction
to the primary driver to conduct these acts of random negligence for no
apparent reason.''
Mr. Speaker, we have seen the number of contractors increase
exponentially as the Bush administration has placed an unnecessary
strain on our Armed Forces through the war in Iraq. In 2001, Blackwater
had less than $1 million in Federal contracts. By 2006, that figure had
grown to over half a billion dollars, an increase of more than 80,000
percent. Today, there are approximately 180,000 Federal contractors in
Iraq alone, a number greater than the American military presence.
Because of the President's policy of escalation in Iraq, we have become
more reliant on these contractors to protect American interests there.
For every Blackwater mercenary the United States Government hires to
protect embassy officials, Blackwater charges $1,222 per day, which is
over six times more than the cost of an equivalent American soldier.
Mr. Speaker, the lack of oversight of Federal contractors committing
crimes overseas is an example of how the system of Federal contracting
is broken. Earlier this year, this Congress got off to a strong start
by passing H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act which
helped restore integrity to the contracting process. I am also proud to
be the sponsor of H.R. 2198, the Contractor Accountability Act, which
will require the head of every agency and department to ensure that
every Federal contract recipient is fulfilling their obligations after
they are awarded that contract. It requires that every Federal agency
and department awarding contracts submit a report on the status of
those contracts to Congress. This is the type of oversight and
accountability that is necessary to ensure that the problems that are
happening in Iraq with Federal contractors and here at home can finally
be put to an end.
Today, with the passage of the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act, we
are addressing a critical loophole in our contracting crisis by
ensuring that those contractors who commit crimes are held accountable
for their actions. What we seek to do today is simple but important.
The MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act will hold Federal contractors
operating overseas to the same standards we hold ourselves and to which
we hold our brave troops. And let's be clear. This bill does not
prevent contractors from using force if the situation calls for it. Our
bill simply allows contractors to be punished for committing acts of
murder and other felonies. Nobody should be immune from the law. This
legislation will ensure that no one, even if he is a private contractor
in Iraq, is.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying this rule provides for the
consideration of H.R. 2740, the MEJA Expansion and
[[Page H11179]]
Enforcement Act. This bill is an attempt to ensure that all Federal
civilian contractors can be prosecuted for crimes they commit abroad.
The issue before us today is not, Mr. Speaker, a policy decision to
determine whether or not contractors should be in Iraq, but, rather,
the issue is whether the principle of current law should be applied to
civilian contractors.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Forbes, the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security in the Judiciary
Committee testified before the Rules Committee that while the intent of
this legislation is right, this bill is very, very poorly drafted.
During markup of the bill by the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Forbes
and other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee raised concerns with
Members on the other side of the aisle. Republicans agreed that they
would work to move this legislation forward because of assurances made
by the majority members of the committee that their concerns would be
worked out. Mr. Forbes testified before the Rules Committee that his
main concerns with the bill were a lack of clear definitions, vague
language and Federal mandates on the FBI without additional resources.
Mr. Speaker, a manager's amendment was submitted to the Rules
Committee and it wasn't until after the Rules Committee amendment
deadline had passed Monday evening that Mr. Forbes found that none of
the concerns raised by Republicans were addressed in the manager's
amendment. At this point, of course, it was too late for Mr. Forbes and
other Members to submit amendments. Had they tried to submit amendments
to the Rules Committee past the deadline, they likely would have been
turned away at the Rules Committee door, just as many Members,
including myself, have been this Congress.
Yesterday, the ranking member, Mr. Dreier, attempted to provide an
open rule for consideration of this bill. An open rule would have
allowed any Member of the House of Representatives an opportunity to
come forward and amend the bill, and especially those members of the
Judiciary Committee that felt that they were left out of this process.
However, the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee rejected this idea on
a party line vote of 8-4.
Mr. Dreier then attempted to allow Mr. Forbes to offer an amendment
on the floor today to make changes to the bill in order to restore the
commitment that was once made by the Democrat majority. But I am
disappointed that this attempt was also rejected on a party line vote
of 8-4.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill was reported by the Judiciary
Committee over 2 months ago and yet the Democrat majority failed to
make good on their commitment to address the reasonable and entirely
justifiable concerns raised by Republicans.
Mr. Speaker, contractor accountability is an issue that should be
discussed and addressed in a bipartisan manner. But there are
legitimate concerns with the way this bill was drafted. Unfortunately,
this rule denies Members, including all Republicans, an opportunity to
improve the underlying bill. Because the Rules Committee has once again
chosen to stifle bipartisanship and deliberation by bringing forth this
restrictive rule, I must urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, House
Resolution 702.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California, I would just like to say that in the
process of this bill coming forward, not a single Republican offered an
amendment in the committee. Though the committee reported the bill by
voice vote, not a single person voted ``no.'' Only one Republican
offered an amendment for the floor, and it had nothing to do with the
scope of the bill and was nongermane.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SUTTON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding.
She was in the committee yesterday when Mr. Forbes testified. I would
hope that the gentlewoman would agree with me that when Mr. Forbes
testified under questioning from me asking if he felt that he had
assurances that these issues would be worked out from the time that the
committee passed the bill out of committee in August until now, and he
said that he felt that that commitment was a strong commitment, and
therefore, he didn't offer any amendments.
Now, would the gentlewoman agree with me that that was what Mr.
Forbes said?
Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman for his question.
I think that the important thing here to look at is there was an
opportunity for the Republican side to offer amendments, and only one
was offered yesterday in committee. There was an opportunity,
obviously, for those to be presented.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentlewoman further yield on
that point?
Ms. SUTTON. Certainly.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentlewoman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say under questioning when I asked Mr.
Forbes, because he stated that the deadline had passed when the
manager's amendment which did not address their concerns was
introduced, he then, of course, would be prohibited from offering
amendments. I asked him if there were an opportunity in the next 24
hours, i.e., from yesterday until today, could they prepare amendments
to address these concerns, he said, ``Yes.''
I hope that the gentlewoman will agree with me that that is what he
said yesterday in front of the Rules Committee.
Ms. SUTTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the reality of this is
there was an opportunity to offer amendments as explained. Somebody did
offer an amendment. Unfortunately, that amendment was nongermane.
At this point I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui), a distinguished member of the Committee on
Rules.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for
yielding me time.
I rise today in strong support not only of this bill but also of
increased accountability in Iraq. From the outset, this misguided war
has been characterized by gray areas, gray areas of policy, of
motivation and of legitimacy. One consequence of these gray areas has
been the collapse of law and order in Iraq. Many military contractors,
contractors paid by our government, contribute to the chaos there.
Mr. Speaker, the Iraq war is a first major conflict in which private
contractors perform tasks typically done by uniformed military.
Employees from companies like Blackwater provide security for military
and political figures. They protect buildings. Rumors have swirled that
they may soon guard military convoys.
Mr. Speaker, private contractors acting in military roles should be
held to the same standards as our armed services. They should not have
free rein to shoot, maim and kill people in the name of security. If
they act illegally, they must be punished accordingly. This, Mr.
Speaker, is what law and order means. We cannot convince the world that
we value peace and security if American contractors are undermining it
in Iraq. It is hypocritical for us to ask Iraqis to obey the rule of
law when we do not demand the same from the contractors we are paying.
Like all of my colleagues, I want our brave young men and women in Iraq
to be as safe as they can be. The legislation before us today will help
restore the trust of the Iraqi public and of the international
community.
During World War II, only 5 percent of our in-theater forces were
private contractors. Today, we have just as many contractors in Iraq as
we do American soldiers, contractors who are not accountable to the
American people but who are paid for by the American people. Crimes
committed by these contractors are the reason why this bill is so long
overdue. It finally holds contractors accountable for their actions.
But the larger issue is that our men and women in uniform are
overburdened. Our military is in danger of collapsing under the strain
of a never-ending war. This is one of the many reasons why we must
change course in Iraq.
That, Mr. Speaker, is my objective. It is the objective of a clear
majority in the House. It is the will of the American people. We must
do everything we
[[Page H11180]]
can to increase oversight of contractors. This legislation is a step in
the right direction.
I urge my colleagues to take this step today so that in the coming
days, we can finally change our Nation's course in Iraq.
{time} 1100
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the point once again, the reason
that there were no Republican amendments that were submitted to the
Rules Committee is because there was a clear, clear understanding when
the bill was passed out of the Judiciary Committee that the issues and
concerns that were raised by the Republicans would be addressed in a
bipartisan way, and the vehicle by which they would be addressed was a
manager's amendment, which is a normal process when you bring bills to
the floor. That commitment was apparently not fulfilled.
By the time that the manager's amendment was drafted, with the idea
that supposedly in a bipartisan way these issues would be addressed, it
was too late for any Republican to offer an amendment because it was
past the deadline that was put in place by this new majority on the
Rules Committee. Therefore, there was no chance for Republicans to
submit any amendments. Therefore, there were no amendments that were
submitted.
So I just wanted to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker, that the
reason that there were no Republican amendments submitted to the Rules
Committee is because a promise and a commitment was broken between
August 2 and October 2, yesterday, when we met on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the author
of the bill, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina is
recognized for 6 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor to be a resource in this rules
debate, but not to take on the role of a Rules Committee member. Since
the gentleman has raised the issue of the kinds of amendments that were
or were not proposed and the kind of accommodations that were or were
not made, I think perhaps I can respond in a helpful way.
The approach that we have taken to this bill has been to invite and
respond to critiques that various stakeholders might have of the way we
were approaching this. The gentleman is probably aware we had a
manager's amendment in committee that accommodated legitimate concerns.
Perhaps that was one factor producing an approval by the committee
without dissent. We have a manager's amendment today that is similarly
taking into account a number of the concerns that have been raised. We
have been open to suggestions.
The amendment that the gentleman is referring to, however, the Forbes
amendment, was not of the character that one would normally include in
a manager's amendment. I think we have been clear all along that the
kinds of amendments that would be appropriate for consideration in that
technical vein would not include amendments that went to the very heart
of the bill, such as an amendment that would compromise the FBI role in
the legal regime we are setting up.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from
Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding for this exchange, because I think it is important. This issue
is very, very important because we are talking about ultimately a
portion of the security of our country, and I think we need to address
that in a bipartisan way.
I am simply pointing out, in testimony yesterday in front of the
Rules Committee, Mr. Forbes was given the assurance when the bill left
the Judiciary Committee, and I don't think that the gentleman is on the
Judiciary Committee, but he felt that he had a commitment that those
concerns be addressed.
Now, having concerns addressed and being totally satisfied are two
different things. If they weren't satisfied, then you could offer an
amendment to make the adjustments and you could debate those issues.
The point I am making is that Mr. Forbes felt that the commitment that
was given to him to make those adjustments and those concerns were not
fully addressed; therefore, he didn't submit any amendments to the
bill. I am not suggesting that all of his concerns should be in the
manager's amendment; I am simply suggesting that he was denied the
opportunity, in his mind, to have these concerns addressed.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the
gentleman will understand that I am not in a position to give the blow-
by-blow account in either the Judiciary Committee or the Rules
Committee, but I will convey my understanding, because I think it is
important to do that.
We are talking here about an amendment that Mr. Forbes wrote, which
as I understand it would compromise the bill by stripping out the
requirement for FBI units to be pre-positioned on the ground to
investigate alleged criminal behavior.
I am characterizing the amendment because I did not ever have the
text of the amendment. I don't think anyone did. It was sprung on the
Rules Committee yesterday. It would seem to me, with all due respect,
that if there were a concern that the manager's amendment might not be
adequate, particularly on a matter of this scope, which is way beyond
the usual scope of a manager's amendment, Mr. Forbes might have
circulated a draft of a possible amendment, so that it could be
discussed rationally in the Rules Committee if the manager's amendment
somehow fell short. My understanding is that this was not done.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield
further, I just want to, Mr. Speaker, tell my colleagues that there was
no Forbes amendment in front of the Rules Committee, so I can't even
pass judgment whether it addressed the concerns that he had. He did not
submit an amendment to the Rules Committee. He did not submit an
amendment to the Rules Committee because he was given the assurances
that the concerns that were raised when the bill came out of committee
would be addressed.
While the gentleman is probably talking about a potential amendment,
nobody on the Rules Committee saw the amendment, because the amendment
was not submitted to the Rules Committee because he felt his concerns
were not addressed.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to clarify that.
When he talks about the Forbes amendment, there is, or was no Forbes
amendment in front of the Rules Committee yesterday.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, that is true. It is a
hypothetical. I am giving my understanding as to the content of that
amendment. But the point is, I would say this subject matter is not the
stuff of a potential manager's amendment, and if there was some kind of
concern about what the manager's amendment would contain, the prudent
course would have been to have some kind of draft that the gentleman
and others could have looked at so that the Rules Committee could have
acted on it intelligently.
My main point, Mr. Speaker, is to say that our approach to this bill
all along has been nonpartisan. We have had good bipartisan cooperation
and support every step of the way. We have accommodated in manager's
amendments, in the committee and here today, the legitimate concerns
that were raised. I simply want to register the hope that that pattern
of partisan cooperation can continue as we debate this bill.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again, I just want to reiterate, without beating this to
death, that not a single Republican amendment was offered in committee.
There was opportunity to provide amendments yesterday in the Rules
Committee. This is an important bill that we need to stay focused on
the substance of as well.
[[Page H11181]]
Mr. Speaker, at this time it is an honor to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me
time. I do think the admonition is important to focus on the substance
of this legislation. The Rules Committee, as she points out, wasn't
given an alternative and there is nobody in this Chamber, I think, that
has a better, more well-deserved reputation for being a thoughtful,
bipartisan Member to try and solve problems than our colleague, the
primary sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Price). I am privileged to be a cosponsor of the legislation with
him.
Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity for this Chamber to focus on an
important area of accountability. We have in the newspapers, not just
this week, we have had accounts going on not just for months, but from
the outset of this war about the trend to outsource fundamental
functions that heretofore have been the province of United States
soldiers. It has had significant consequences. We are now finding, as a
result of some of the hearings, that there have been repeated instances
of violence. We are finding that there is no good remedy currently
under the law. There is basically no clear line of authority to get
back to be able to exercise the oversight and accountability of the
security function that has been outsourced.
What Mr. Price has offered up is a small part of moving in the
direction that we should have done from the outset. I would hope that
we can get past the discussion on the rule. I plan on supporting it and
look forward to a vigorous debate on the floor to open up this question
of accountability for a war that is outsourced, for costs that are five
times what an American soldier would do to provide exactly the same
function. With the American soldier at one fifth the cost of a
mercenary there is a clear line of authority. If something goes
sideways, we know what is going to happen.
Mr. Price has offered up legislation that gets us started in that
direction. It is a thoughtful, bipartisan, narrowly crafted effort. It
is not the whole answer, but it moves us in the right direction. I
would strongly urge that my colleagues support the rule, support the
underlying bill, and get us moving into an important area of debate,
accountability and responsibility. Our failure in this area is going to
have serious consequences for years to come. We are already seeing this
with the Iraqi Government. We are seeing it in terms of problems on the
ground. We are seeing questions that are being asked, answers demanded
by Americans and Iraqis alike. Working together on this bill is a first
step towards remedying that situation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the previous speaker, my friend from
Oregon, that the sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Price), is a very, very thoughtful individual. I have
worked with him on some issues, and I would agree with that. I think
Members would also agree with me when I say that the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Forbes) is also a very thoughtful individual and somebody
that you can work with on a bipartisan basis.
When somebody like Mr. Forbes comes to the Rules Committee and tells
us that he was given a commitment about concerns that he felt needed to
be addressed in this legislation and was given the assurances that they
would be addressed, not necessarily solved but at least be addressed, I
think you would have to say that he was acting in very good faith. I
think this sends a very, very strong message for Members that want to
work in a bipartisan way and then get treated as Mr. Forbes said he was
treated. I think that is not good for the institution.
So I just want to, Mr. Speaker, reiterate once again what happened.
The reason that there were no amendments substantive to the issue of
the concerns that were submitted by Republicans to the Rules Committee
is because the ranking member on the subcommittee dealing with this
issue felt that the commitments that were given to him were not carried
out. There were no, apparently, discussions of what was going into the
manager's amendment.
Again, I am not suggesting Mr. Forbes would have been totally happy,
but he could have offered an amendment to address those concerns. He
was denied that opportunity simply, simply because he felt the
commitment that was given to him when the bill came out of the
Judiciary Committee was not carried through.
So it is for that reason, that reason that we probably won't have as
robust a debate on this issue, and in all likelihood we won't have the
kind of legislation that needs to go forward in a bipartisan manner on
something where everybody agrees that the intent of this legislation is
what everybody agrees on a bipartisan basis needs to happen. I regret
that. It is for that reason that I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker at this time on my
side, so I will reserve my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Speaker, for the past several weeks my colleagues on the Rules
Committee and I have called for a vote on the previous question and
will be doing so again today. Why? Because we are concerned that the
House rules are flawed when it comes to the enforceability of earmarks.
Republican Leader Boehner has a proposal that will improve the House
rules and allow the House to debate openly and honestly the validity
and accuracy of earmarks contained in all bills. I am asking that my
colleagues vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the
rule to allow the House to immediately consider House Resolution 479
introduced by Republican Leader Boehner.
By defeating the previous question, the House will still be able to
consider the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act today, but will also be
able to address earmark enforceability in order to restore the
credibility of the House. I am hopeful today will be the day my
colleagues will defeat the previous question and, in doing so, will
send a strong message to American taxpayers that this House is serious
when it comes to earmark transparency.
{time} 1115
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the
amendment and extraneous material inserted in the Record prior to the
vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
oppose the previous question and the restrictive rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina on this strong bipartisan bill. The MEJA
Expansion and Enforcement Act is critical, commonsense legislation to
hold contractors responsible for criminal behavior, just like we hold
our troops responsible for crimes when they are committed, and just
like we hold American citizens responsible for following the law.
Those who argue against this measure seem willing to tolerate
lawlessness in countries where our military is seeking to restore
justice. The truth is, every time we see an incident with an Iraqi
civilian being killed and American contractors escaping accountability,
our men and women in uniform suffer. They see support from the
insurgents rise and they lose the trust of the Iraqi people.
Our troops are not responsible for the strain that the President has
placed on our Armed Forces which has led to the need for mercenaries to
carry out missions that our troops capably handle, and it is tragic
that the troops are targeted for the negligence of private contractors.
We owe it to our troops and the Iraqi people to ensure that contractors
are held to the same standards of justice as everybody else. Only then
will we see a true deterrent to vigilante behavior and reckless actions
by private citizens working overseas for our Federal agencies and
Departments.
It is simple, Mr. Speaker. The MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act
extends policies that are in place for the
[[Page H11182]]
Department of Defense to contractors for other agencies.
And let's be clear: Nobody is accusing every single contractor of
committing the criminal acts we have talked about today. But when a
contractor does commit a crime, they must be punished and we must have
consequences to serve as a deterrent. It should not be controversial to
punish people for committing murder and other felonies. This is a giant
loophole in our law that is hurting our reputation abroad, hurting our
troops in the field and is making a mockery of the American sense of
justice.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 702 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point
of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the
Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for
enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion
or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2)
one motion to recommit.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________